Ramanujan's Beautiful Integrals

Abstract: Throughout his entire mathematical life, Ramanujan loved to evaluate definite integrals. One can find them in his problems submitted to the \emph{Journal of the Indian Mathematical Society}, notebooks, Quarterly Reports to the University of Madras, letters to Hardy, published papers and the Lost Notebook. His evaluations are often surprising, beautiful, elegant, and useful in other mathematical contexts. He also discovered general methods for evaluating and approximating integrals. A survey of Ramanujan's contributions to the evaluation of integrals is given, with examples provided from each of the above-mentioned sources.

\section{Introduction}
Ramanujan loved infinite series and integrals.  They permeate almost all of his work from the years he recorded his findings in notebooks \cite{nb} until the end of his life in 1920 at the age of 32. In this paper we provide a survey of some of his most beautiful theorems on integrals. Of course, it is impossible to adequately cover what Ramanujan accomplished in his devotion to integrals.   Many of Ramanujan's theorems and examples of integrals have inspired countless mathematicians to take Ramanujan's thoughts and proceed further. For many of Ramanujan's integrals, we stand in awe and admire their beauty, much as we listen to a beautiful Beethoven piano sonata or an intricate but mellifluous raaga in Carnatic or Hindustani classical music.  We hope that this survey will provide further inspiration.

 Ramanujan evaluated many definite integrals, most often infinite integrals.  In many cases, the integrals are so ``unusual,'' that we often wonder how Ramanujan ever thought that elegant evaluations existed.  Some of his integrals satisfy often surprising functional equations.  He was an expert in finding exquisite examples for integral transforms, some of which are original with him.  His so-called ``Master Theorem" fits into this category.  Some of his integrals have (non-trivial) relations with infinite series and continued fractions.  Ramanujan was also a master in finding asymptotic expansions of integrals.

 Integrals often arise in concomitant problems that Ramanujan studied.  For example, in his first letter to G.~H.~Hardy, Ramanujan asserted \cite[p.~24]{bcbrar} (with a minor correction needed)
 \begin{quote}
1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 16, 17, 18,\dots\, are numbers which are either themselves squares or which can be expressed as the sum of two squares.
The number of such numbers greater than \emph{A}  and less than
\emph{B}
 $$=K\int_A^B \df{dx}{\sqrt{\log x}} + \theta (x)$$
where $ K  = .764 \dots$ and $\theta (x)$ is very small when
compared with the previous integral.  \emph{K} and $\theta (x)$
have been exactly found though complicated.
\end{quote}

Theorems and claims of this kind are better addressed in the contexts in which they arise, and so we do not address such integral appearances in the present paper.

Beginning in 1911, Ramanujan offered a total of 58 \emph{Questions} to the \emph{Journal of the Indian Mathematical Society}.  In seven of them, readers are asked to evaluate definite integrals.  (For discussions of all 58 problems, see a paper by the first author, Y.-S.~Choi, and S.-Y.~Kang \cite{lange}, \cite[pp.~215--258]{bcbrara}.) Ramanujan's first letter to Hardy contains over 60 statements, and eleven of them pertain to definite integrals. In his second letter to Hardy, seven entries provide evaluations of integrals \cite[pp.~xxiii--xxix]{cp}, \cite[Chapter 2]{bcbrar}.  (Portions of both letters have been lost.)  Six of Ramanujan's published papers are devoted to the evaluation of integrals.  The most abundant source for Ramanujan's integrals are his (earlier) notebooks \cite{nb}.  His lost notebook \cite{lnb} also contains several intriguing integrals \cite{lnb}.

The purpose of this paper is to provide readers with a survey of some of Ramanujan's most beautiful, surprising, and possibly useful integrals.  Examples from each of the sources mentioned in the previous paragraph will be given.

\section{Problems Posed by Ramanujan in the\\ \emph{Journal of the Indian Mathematical Society}}

Question 783 below is an especially elegant problem posed by Ramanujan in the \emph{Journal of the Indian Mathematical Society} \cite{783} and found in Ramanujan's third notebook \cite[p.~373]{nb}.  Like so many of Ramanujan's discoveries, we wonder how Ramanujan ever thought of this problem.  While reading this paper, readers will undoubtedly ask questions of this sort several times.

\begin{question} \textbf{(Question 783)}\label{783a}
For $n\geq 0$, put $v=u^n-u^{n-1}$, and define
\begin{equation}\label{783b}
\varphi(n):=\int_0^1\df{\log u}{v}dv.
\end{equation}
Then,
\begin{equation*}
\varphi(0)=\df{\pi^2}{6},\qquad \varphi(1)=\df{\pi^2}{12}, \qquad\text{and}\qquad\varphi(2)=\df{\pi^2}{15}.
\end{equation*}
Furthermore, if $n>0$,
\begin{equation}\label{783c}
\varphi(n)+\varphi\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)=\df{\pi^2}{6}.
\end{equation}
\end{question}

Inspired by Question \ref{783a}, Berndt and R.~J.~Evans \cite{rje} established the generalization given below.  Here and in the sequel, we use the conventions
\begin{equation*}
f(\infty):=\begin{cases}\underset{x\to\infty}{\lim}f(x), \quad &\text{provided that the limit exists},\\
 \infty, \quad & \text{if } f(x)\to \infty \text{ as } x\to\infty.
 \end{cases}
 \end{equation*}

\begin{theorem}\label{783d}
Let $g$ be a strictly increasing, differentiable function on $[0,\infty)$ with $g(0)=1$ and $g(\infty)=\infty$. For $n>0$ and $t\geq0$, define
\begin{equation*}
v(t):=\df{g^n(t)}{g(1/t)}.
\end{equation*}
Suppose that
\begin{equation*}
\varphi(n):=\int_0^1\log\,g(t)\df{dv}{v}
\end{equation*}
converges. Then
\begin{equation*}
\varphi(n)+\varphi\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)=2\varphi(1).
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}

Note that if $g(t)=1+t$, Theorem \ref{783d} reduces to Question \ref{783a}. See \cite{rje} and \cite[pp.~326--329]{IV} for more details.

The integral \eqref{783b} is reminiscent of the dilogarithm, defined by
\begin{equation}\label{dilog}
\text{Li}_2(z):=-\int_0^z\df{\log(1-w)}{w}dw, \qquad z\in\mathbb{C},
\end{equation}
where the principal branch of $\log(1-w)$ is chosen.  The dilogarithm was studied by Ramanujan in Chapter 9 of his first notebook \cite[Entries 5--7]{nb}, \cite[pp.~246--249]{I}, where many of the fundamental properties of $\text{Li}_2(z)$ are proved.  He returned to $\text{Li}_2(z)$ in his third notebook \cite[pp.~365]{nb},  \cite[pp.~322--326]{IV}.

Ramanujan was fond of formulas evincing symmetry, such as in Question 295 below \cite{295}.

\begin{question}\label{295a} If $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are positive and $\alpha\beta=\pi$, then
\begin{equation}\label{1}
\sqrt{\alpha}\int_0^{\i}\df{e^{-x^2}}{\cosh \, \alpha x}dx =\sqrt{\beta}\int_0^{\i}\df{e^{-x^2}}{\cosh \, \beta x}dx.
\end{equation}
\end{question}

 Question \ref{295a} can be found in Ramanujan's first letter to G.~H.~Hardy \cite[p.~27]{bcbrar}, and also in Section 21 of Chapter 13 in his second notebook \cite{nb}, \cite[p.~225]{II}.  The identity \eqref{1} appears in a manuscript published with the lost notebook \cite{lnb}, \cite[p.~368]{geabcbIV}, and it  was also  established by Hardy \cite[p.~203]{hardy1}.
  Four additional relations in the spirit of \eqref{1} can be found in the aforementioned manuscript \cite[p.~368]{geabcbIV}.

  \section{Ramanujan's First Two Letters to Hardy} In his first letter to Hardy, Ramanujan offers the following ``reciprocity" formula or ``theta" relation.

  \begin{theorem}\label{modular1} For $n>0$, define
  \begin{equation}\label{modular}
 \phi(n):=\int_0^{\infty} \dfrac{\cos nx}{ e^{2\pi \sqrt x} - 1}dx.
\end{equation}
 Then
 \begin{equation}\label{modular2}
 \int_0^{\infty} \df{\sin nx}{e^{2\pi \sqrt
x} - 1}dx = \phi (n) - \df{1}{2n} + \phi \left(\df{\pi ^2}{
n}\right)\sqrt{\df{2 \pi ^3}{ n^3}} .
\end{equation}
``$\phi (n)$ is a complicated function \dots"
\end{theorem}

As special cases,

$$\phi (0) = \df{1}{12};\qquad \phi \left(\df{\pi}{ 2}\right) = \df{1}{4\pi};\qquad \phi (\pi) = \df{2 -\sqrt{2}}{ 8};\qquad \phi(2\pi) = \df{1}
{16};$$

$$\phi \left(\df{2\pi}{ 5}\right) = \df{8 - 3\sqrt{5}}{16};\qquad \phi
\left(\df{\pi}{ 5}\right) = \df{6 +\sqrt{5}}{ 4} - \df{ 5 \sqrt{10}}{8};\qquad \phi
(\infty) = 0;$$

$$\phi \left(\df{2\pi }{ 3}\right) = \df{1}{ 3} - \sqrt{3} \left(\df {3}{ 16} - \df{1}{
8 \pi}\right) .$$

An abbreviated version of Theorem \ref{modular1} appeared as a problem in the \emph{Journal of the Indian Mathematical Society} \cite{463}.  Theorem \ref{modular1} can also be found in Ramanujan's notebooks \cite{nb}.

The function $\phi(n)$  in \eqref{modular} can be expressed in terms of a variant of Gauss sums to which Ramanujan devotes an entire paper \cite{12}.  For example, if $n=a/b$, where $a$ and $b$ are positive odd numbers, then
\begin{equation}\label{modular3}
\phi\left(\df{\pi a}{b}\right):=\df14\sum_{r=1}^b(b-2r)\cos\left(\df{r^2\pi a}{b}\right)-\df{b}{4a}\sqrt{\df{b}{a}}
\sum_{r=1}^{a}(a-2r)\sin\left(\df{1}{4}\pi+\df{r^2 \pi b}{a}\right).
\end{equation}
See Berndt's book \cite[pp.~296--303]{IV} for a more complete discussion of $\phi(n)$ and its  connections with Ramanujan's analogues of Gauss sums and another class of his infinite series.

  After discussing the Rogers--Ramanujan continued fraction and two generalizations in his second letter to Hardy, Ramanujan offers representations for a pair of integrals by continued fractions \cite[p.~xxviii]{cp}, \cite[p.~57]{bcbrar}.

  \begin{theorem} We have
  \begin{align*}
  4\int_0^{\infty}\df{xe^{-x\sqrt5}}{\cosh x}dx&=\df{1}{1}\+\df{1^2}{1}\+\df{1^2}{1}\+\df{2^2}{1}\+\df{2^2}{1}\+\df{3^2}{1}\+\df{3^2}{1}\+\cds,\\
2\int_0^{\infty}\df{x^2e^{-x\sqrt3}}{\sinh x}dx&=\df{1}{1}\+\df{1^3}{1}\+\df{1^3}{3}\+\df{2^3}{1}\+\df{2^3}{5}\+\df{3^3}{1}\+\df{3^3}{7}\+\cds.
\end{align*}
\end{theorem}

These two identities were first proved in print by C.~T.~Preece \cite{preece} in 1931.  Above, we have corrected two misprints in the second formula that appears in \cite[p.~xxviii]{cp}.

\section{Ramanujan's Published Papers on Integrals}

Ramanujan published the papers \cite{7}, \cite{11}, \cite{12}, \cite{22}, \cite{23}, and \cite{27} on definite integrals.  We briefly discussed some of the content of \cite{12} in the previous section.

Define, for $\Re(w)\geq 0$,
\begin{equation*
\phi_{w}(t):=\int_0^{\i}\df{\cos\,\pi tx}{\cosh\,\pi x}e^{-\pi wx^2}dx \qquad\text{and}\qquad
\psi_{w}(t):=\int_0^{\i}\df{\sin\,\pi tx}{\sinh\,\pi x}e^{-\pi wx^2}dx.
\end{equation*}
 In \cite{23}, Ramanujan made use of ``modular relations'' satisfied by $\phi_w(t)$ and $\psi_w(t)$, namely,
 \begin{align*}
   \phi_w(t)&=\df{1}{\sqrt{w}}e^{-\tf14\pi t^2/w}\psi_{1/w}(it/w)
   \end{align*}
   and
   \begin{equation*}
   e^{\tf14\pi t^2/w}\left\{\frac12+\psi_w(t)\right\}=e^{\tf14\pi(t+w)^2/w}\phi_w(t+w),
   \end{equation*}
   to develop representations in terms of theta functions.  These were then used
     to evaluate  large classes of integrals for specific values of $t$ and $w$.  We give two examples:
\begin{align}\label{mos}
\int_0^{\i}\df{\sin\,2\pi tx}{\sinh\,\pi x}\cos\,\pi x^2\,dx&=\df{\cosh\,\pi t-\cos\,\pi t^2}{2\sinh\,\pi t},\\\
\int_0^{\i}\df{\sin\,2\pi tx}{\sinh\,\pi x}\sin\,\pi x^2\,dx&=\df{\sin\,\pi t^2}{2\sinh\,\pi t}.\notag
\end{align}
The integral evaluation \eqref{mos} was used by A.~K.~Mustafy \cite{mustafy} to obtain a new integral representation of the Riemann zeta function $\zeta(s)$, with an integrand similar to those above, which in turn also gives a proof of Riemann's functional equation for $\zeta(s)$.

Perhaps Ramanujan's most important paper on integrals is \cite{27}. Here, several classes of integrals involving the gamma function are evaluated in closed form.   Many of the integrals in \cite{27} can perhaps be evaluated by contour integration, although Ramanujan did not use this method in \cite{27}.
It  has generally been accepted that Ramanujan was not conversant with the analytic theory of functions of a complex variable. Hardy opined
\cite[p.~xxx]{cp}, ``\dots and he (Ramanujan) had indeed but the vaguest idea of what a function of a complex variable was.'' However, in \cite{27} it is clear that Ramanujan knew certain elementary facts about functions of a complex variable, in particular, at the very least, he was aware of the care needed in treating branches of ``multi-valued'' functions.
 On the next-to-last page of Ramanujan's third notebook \cite[pp.~391]{nb}, several integrals from complex analysis are recorded.  Next to one of them appear the words, ``contour integration.''   So, maybe Ramanujan knew more complex analysis than either Hardy or others have thought.

One of the general integrals that Ramanujan evaluated is \cite{27}, \cite[pp.~221--222]{cp}:
\begin{equation*}
\int_{-\i}^{\i}\Gamma(\alpha+x)\Gamma(\beta-x)e^{inx}dx.
\end{equation*}
Similarly, Ramanujan devised a general approach to evaluating
\begin{equation*}
\int_{-\i}^{\i}\df{e^{inx}}{\Gamma(\alpha+x)\Gamma(\beta-x)\Gamma(\gamma+\ell x)\Gamma(\delta-\ell x)}dx,
\end{equation*}
where $n$ and $\ell$ are real numbers.
We forego hypotheses in this brief survey, but instead mention only a special case.  If $\alpha+\beta+\gamma+\delta=4$, then \cite[p.~229]{27}
\begin{gather*}
\int_{-\i}^{\i}\df{\cos\{\pi(x+\beta+\gamma)\}}{\Gamma(\alpha+x)\Gamma(\beta-x)\Gamma(\gamma+2 x)\Gamma(\delta-2x)}dx\\=
\df{1}{2\Gamma(\gamma+\delta-1)\Gamma(2\alpha+\delta-2)\Gamma(2\beta+\gamma-2)}.
\end{gather*}

Ramanujan  devised some beautiful and unusual definite integral evaluations involving products of ordinary Bessel functions $J_{\nu}(x)$.  For example, if
$\Re(\alpha+\beta)>-1$ \cite[p.~225]{27},
\begin{equation*}
\int_{-\i}^{\i}\df{J_{\alpha+w}(x)}{x^{\alpha+w}}\df{J_{\beta-w}(y)}{y^{\beta-w}}dw=
\df{J_{\alpha+\beta}\{\sqrt{(2x^2+2y^2)}\}}{(\tf12 x^2+\tf12 y^2)^{(\alpha+\beta)/2}}.
\end{equation*}
Ramanujan concluded his paper \cite{27} with a formula providing the evaluation of a fairly general integral involving the product of four Bessel functions.

Ramanujan's integrals were discussed by Watson in his treatise \cite[p.~449]{watson}.  In a footnote, he remarks, ``these integrals evaluated by Ramanujan may prove to be of the highest importance in the theory of the transmission of Electric Waves.''

One of the highly influential papers that Ramanujan wrote after arriving in England is his paper \cite{riemann}, in which he obtains transformations for integrals arising in the theory of Riemann's zeta function $\zeta(s)$.  The Riemann $\xi(s)$ and $\Xi$ functions are defined by \cite[p.~16]{titch}
\begin{align*}
\xi(s):=\frac{1}{2}s(s-1)\pi^{-\frac{s}{2}}\Gamma\left(\frac{s}{2}\right)\zeta(s) \qquad\text{and}\qquad \Xi(t)&:=\xi\left(\tfrac{1}{2}+it\right).
\end{align*}
In his review \cite{hardyw} of Ramanujan's work in England until 1917, Hardy cites \cite{riemann} as one of Ramanujan's four most important papers.

One of the two main results in his paper is \cite[Equation (12)]{riemann}
\begin{align}\label{uncanny1}
&\int_{0}^{\infty}\left\{e^{-z}-4\pi\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{xe^{-3z-\pi x^2e^{-4z}}}{e^{2\pi x}-1}\, dx\right\}\cos(tz)\, dz\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{8\sqrt{\pi}}\G\left(\frac{-1+it}{4}\right)\G\left(\frac{-1-it}{4}\right)\Xi\left(\frac{t}{2}\right),
\end{align}
 which, through Fourier inversion, leads to \cite[Equation (13)]{riemann}
\begin{align}\label{13}
&e^{-n}-4\pi e^{-3n}\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{xe^{-\pi x^2e^{-4n}}}{e^{2\pi x}-1}\, dx\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{4\pi\sqrt{\pi}}\int_{0}^{\infty}\G\left(\frac{-1+it}{4}\right)\G\left(\frac{-1-it}{4}\right)\Xi\left(\frac{t}{2}\right)\cos(nt)\, dt
\end{align}
for $n\in\mathbb{R}$. About \eqref{13}, Hardy \cite{ghh} writes, for $\sigma=\Re(s)$,

\begin{quote}\emph{The integral has properties similar to those of the integral by means of which I proved recently that $\zeta(s)$ has an infinity of zeros on the line $\sigma=1/2$, and may be used for the same purpose.}\end{quote}

  In the last section of his paper \cite{riemann}, for  $n\in\mathbb{R}$, Ramanujan obtains new beautiful integral representations for

\begin{equation}\label{sec5int}
F(n,s):=\int_{0}^{\infty}\Gamma\left(\frac{s-1+it}{4}\right)\Gamma\left(\frac{s-1-it}{4}\right)
\Xi\left(\frac{t+is}{2}\right)\Xi\left(\frac{t-is}{2}\right)\frac{\cos nt}{(s+1)^2+t^2}\, dt,
\end{equation}
 each valid in some vertical strip in the half-plane $\sigma>1$. One of these is given by

\begin{align*
F(n, s)=\frac{1}{8}(4\pi)^{-\frac{1}{2}(s-3)}\int_{0}^{\infty}x^{s}\left(\frac{1}{\exp{(xe^n)}-1}
-\frac{1}{xe^n}\right)\left(\frac{1}{\exp{(xe^{-n})}-1}-\frac{1}{xe^{-n}}\right)\, dx.
\end{align*}
(See \cite{dixit} for corrected misprints in \cite{riemann}.)
Regarding the special case $s=0$ of this integral, Hardy \cite{ghh} writes,
 \begin{quote}\emph{\dots the properties of this integral resemble those of one which Mr. Littlewood and I have used, in a paper to be published shortly in Acta Mathematica to prove that}
 \end{quote}
\begin{equation*}
\int_{-T}^{T}\left|\zeta\left(\frac{1}{2}+ti\right)\right|^2\, dt \sim
2 T\log T\hspace{3mm}(T\to\infty),
\end{equation*}\\[2pt]
 where a misprint from Hardy's paper \cite{ghh} has been corrected.
This special case $s=0$ of the integral in \eqref{sec5int} also appears on page $220$ of the lost notebook \cite{lnb}, where Ramanujan gives an exquisitely beautiful modular relation associated with it. The reader is referred to \cite{bcbad}, \cite{dixitms} and \cite{dixzah} for more details on Ramanujan's formulas from \cite{riemann}, their importance and their applications.

In conclusion, about Ramanujan's formulas from \cite{riemann}, Hardy remarks \cite{ghh},
\begin{quote}\emph{It is difficult at present to estimate the importance of these results. The unsolved problems concerning the zeros of $\zeta(s)$ or of $\Xi(t)$ are among the most obscure and difficult in the whole range of Pure Mathematics. \dots

  But I should not be at all surprised if still more important applications were to be made of Mr. Ramanujan's formulae in the future.}
\end{quote}

\section{Ramanujan's Quarterly Reports}

 Ramanujan's fame began with his publications in the \emph{Journal of the Indian Mathematical Society} in 1911,
 and it reached the English astronomer Sir Gilbert Walker, who was working at an observatory in Madras.  In a letter to the University of Madras dated February 26, 1913, he wrote, ``The University would be justified in enabling S.~Ramanujan for a few years \emph{at least} to spend the whole of his time on mathematics, without any anxiety as to his livelihood.'' The Board of Studies at the University of Madras agreed to this request, and its chairman, Professor B.~Hanumantha Rao, wrote a letter to Vice-Chancellor Francis Dewsbury on March 25, 1913 with the recommendation that Ramanujan be awarded a scholarship of 75 rupees per month.   A stipulation in the scholarship required Ramanujan to write Quarterly Reports to the Board of Studies in Mathematics. Ramanujan wrote three of these Quarterly Reports before he departed for England on March 17, 1914.  Unfortunately, they were eventually lost; but, on the other hand,  fortunately, T.~A.~Satagopan made a handwritten copy of the reports in 1925.  An extensive description of their contents was published by Berndt in the \emph{Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society} \cite{quartblms}. The aforementioned letters can be found in the book \cite[pp.~70--76]{bcbrar} by Berndt and Robert Rankin.

 We offer a few results from the Quarterly Results; the first are Frullani's Theorem and Ramanujan's generalization.

\begin{theorem}\label{frullani1} \textbf{(Frullani)} If $f$ is a continuous function on $[0,\infty)$ such that $f(\infty)$ exists, then, for any pair $a,b>0$,
\begin{equation}\label{frullani}
\int_0^{\infty}\df{f(ax)-f(bx)}{x}dx=\{f(0)-f(\infty)\}\log\left(\df{b}{a}\right).
\end{equation}
If $f(\infty)$ does not exist, but $f(x)/x$ is integrable over $[c,\infty)$ for  $c>0$, then \eqref{frullani} still holds, but with $f(\infty)$ replaced by 0.
\end{theorem}

In his second Quarterly Report, Ramanujan offers a beautiful generalization of Frullani's Theorem. A slightly less general version is provided by Ramanujan in the unorganized pages of his second notebook \cite[pp.~332, 334]{nb}, \cite[p.~316]{I}. We do not give below the hypotheses that are needed for $u(x)$ and $v(x)$;  see \cite[pp.~299, 313]{I} for these requirements.  Set
$$f(x)-f(\infty)=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\df{u(k)(-x)^k}{k!}\qquad\text{and}\qquad g(x)-g(\infty)=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\df{v(k)(-x)^k}{k!}.$$
 Ramanujan also assumes that the limit below can be taken under the integral sign.

 \begin{theorem}\label{frullani2}
 Let  $u(x)$ and $v(x)$ be given as above, and assume that $f$ and $g$ are continuous functions on $[0,\infty)$.  Also assume that $f(0)=g(0)$ and $f(\infty)=g(\infty)$.  Then, if $a,b>0$,
 \begin{equation*}
 \lim_{n\to0}\int_0^{\infty}x^{n-1}\left\{f(ax)-g(bx)\right\}dx
 =\{f(0)-f(\infty)\}\left\{\log\left(\df{b}{a}\right)+\df{d}{ds}\left(\log\left(\df{v(s)}{u(s)}\right)\right)_{s=0}\right\}.
 \end{equation*}
 \end{theorem}

 Ramanuan's proof depends on his now famous \emph{Master Theorem}.  He  assumes that a function $F(x)$ can be expanded in a Taylor series about $x=0$ with an infinite radius of convergence.  Then Ramanujan asserts that the value of the integral
$$ \int_0^{\infty}x^{n-1}F(x)dx$$
can be found from the coefficient of $x^n$ in the expansion of $F(x)$.

\begin{theorem}\label{mastertheorem} \textbf{Ramanujan's Master Theorem.} Suppose that for $-\infty<x<\infty$,
\begin{equation}\label{master}
F(x)=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\df{\varphi(k)(-x)^k}{k!}.
\end{equation}
Then
\begin{equation}\label{master1}
\int_0^{\infty}x^{n-1}\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\df{\varphi(k)(-x)^k}{k!}dx=\Gamma(n)\varphi(-n).
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}

For our first illustration of Ramanujan's Master Theorem \cite[p.~300]{I}, let $m,n>0$ and set $x=y/(1+y)$ to find that
\begin{equation*}\int_0^1x^{m-1}(1-x)^{n-1}dx=\int_0^{\infty}y^{m-1}(1+y)^{-(m+n)}dy.\end{equation*}
From the binomial series
$$ (1+y)^{-r}=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\df{\Gamma(k+r)}{\Gamma(r)k!}(-y)^k, \qquad |y|<1,$$
we find that $\varphi(t)=\Gamma(t+m+n)/\Gamma(m+n).$  Applying Ramanujan's Master Theorem, we deduce the well-known representation of the beta function $B(m,n)$,
\begin{equation}\label{beta}
B(m,n):=\int_0^1 x^{m-1}(1-x)^{n-1}dx=\Gamma(m)\varphi(-m)=\df{\Gamma(m)\Gamma(n)}{\Gamma(m+n)}.
\end{equation}

For our second example, we need the notation
\begin{equation*}\label{intro1}
(a;q)_0:=1,\quad(a;q)_n:=\prod_{k=0}^{n-1}(1-aq^k),\quad n\geq1,
 \end{equation*}
 and
 \begin{equation*}\label{intro2}
 (a;q)_{\i}:=\lim_{n\to\i}(a;q)_n, \quad |q|<1.
 \end{equation*}

Recall the $q$-binomial theorem \cite[p.~8]{gasper}
 \begin{equation*
 \sum_{m=0}^{\i}\df{(a;q)_m}{(q;q)_m}z^m=\df{(az;q)_{\i}}{(z;q)_{\i}},\qquad |z|<1.
 \end{equation*}
 Letting $z=-x$, replacing $a$ by $aq$, and applying the Master Theorem, we establish,  for $\Re\,s>0$, Ramanujan's beautiful identity \cite{12}, \cite[p.~57]{cp},
 \begin{equation}\label{beautiful}
 \int_0^{\infty}t^{s-1}\df{(-atq;q)_{\infty}}{(-t;q)_{\infty}}dt=\df{\pi}{\sin(\pi s)}\df{(q^{1-s};q)_{\infty}(aq;q)_{\infty}}{(q;q)_{\infty}(aq^{1-s};q)_{\infty}}.
 \end{equation}
 Richard Askey \cite{askey} made a thorough study of the integral in \eqref{beautiful} and showed that, if $s=x$ and $a=q^{x+y}$, then this integral is a natural $q$-analogue of the beta function $B(x,y)$ in \eqref{beta}.

 An extension of Ramanujan's Master Theorem has been studied by M.~A.~Chaudhry and A.~Qadir \cite{cq}.

\section{Ramanujan's (Earlier) Notebooks}

As we have seen in the preceding sections, many of Ramanujan's theorems and examples on integrals appear in his notebooks \cite{nb}.  Because of their centrality in Ramanujan's vast accomplishments in his theories of theta functions and modular equations, our concentration in this section focuses on elliptic integrals.

The complete elliptic integral of the first kind $K(k)$, $0<k<1$, is defined by
 \begin{equation*}
 K(k):=\int_0^{\pi/2}\df{dt}{\sqrt{1-k^2\sin^2t}}=\df{\pi}{2}\,{_2F_1}\left(\tf12,\tf12;1;k^2\right),
 \end{equation*}
  where the second equality arises from expanding the integrand in a power series and integrating termwise.
 The number $k$ is called the \emph{modulus}.  The function ${_2F_1}$ on the right-hand side is an (ordinary) hypergeometric function, which is defined (more generally) by
\begin{equation}\label{2F1}
{_pF_q}(a_1,a_2,\dots, a_p;b_1,b_2,\dots, b_q;z):=\sum_{n=0}^{\i}\df{(a_1)_n(a_2)_n\cdots(a_p)_n}{(b_1)_n(b_2)_n\cdots(b_q)_n(n!)}z^n,
\end{equation}
 where
$$(a)_0=1, \qquad (a)_n:=a(a+1)(a+2)\cdots(a+n-1),\qquad n\geq 1,$$
and it is assumed that $p$ and  $q$ are chosen so that \eqref{2F1} converges in some domain.
If $\pi/2$ is replaced by another number $v$, $0<v<\pi/2,$ then the integral is called an incomplete elliptic integral.
The integral $K(k)$ is prominent in the theory of the Jacobian elliptic functions sn$(u)$, cn$(u)$, and dn$(u)$, which evidently were not considered by Ramanujan.
 More importantly, for Ramanujan, $K(k)$ plays a central role in his theories of theta functions, class invariants, singular moduli, Eisenstein series and partitions; its importance cannot be overemphasized.     Any statement about an elliptic integral yields a corresponding statement about an ordinary hypergeometric function, and conversely. However, instead of concentrating on hypergeometric functions, the focus here is on the integral themselves, in particular, their transformations and values.

  Elliptic integrals appear at scattered places in Ramanujan's notebooks.
A particularly rich source of identities for elliptic integrals is Section 7 of Chapter 17 in Ramanujan's second notebook \cite{nb}, \cite[pp.~104--117]{III}.

 We begin with the famous \emph{addition theorem} for elliptic integrals.  Let
\begin{equation*}
u:=\int_0^{\alpha}\df{d \varphi}{\sqrt{1-x^2\sin^2\varphi}}, \quad v:=\int_0^{\beta}\df{d \varphi}{\sqrt{1-x^2\sin^2\varphi}}, \quad
w:=\int_0^{\gamma}\df{d \varphi}{\sqrt{1-x^2\sin^2\varphi}}.
\end{equation*}
Ramanujan gave four different conditions for $\alpha$, $\beta$, and $\gamma$ to ensure the validity of the addition theorem \cite[p.~107]{III}
\begin{equation}\label{uvw}
 u+v=w.
 \end{equation}
 In particular, if \cite[Entry 7(viii) (c)]{III},
 \begin{equation}\label{uvw1}
\cot\,\alpha\,\cot\,\beta=\df{\cos\,\gamma}{\sin\,\alpha\,\sin\,\beta}+\sqrt{1-x\sin^2\gamma},
\end{equation}
then \eqref{uvw} holds. The condition \eqref{uvw1} is equivalent to the condition
$$ \df{\text{cn}(u)\,\text{cn}(v)}{\text{sn}(u)\,\text{sn}(v)}=\df{\text{cn}(u+v)}{\text{sn}(u)\,\text{sn}(v)}+\text{dn}(u+v).$$
Although the addition theorem \eqref{uvw} is classical, many of Ramanujan's identities involving elliptic integrals appear to be new.

 In \cite[pp.~108--109]{III}, the two given proofs of the following result are verifications; Ramanujan must have had a more natural proof.
\begin{entry
If $|x|<1$, then
\begin{equation*}
\df{\pi}{2}\int_0^{\pi/2} \df{d \varphi}{\sqrt{1+x\sin\,\varphi}}=\int_0^{\pi/2}\df{\cos^{-1}(x\,\sin^2\varphi)d\,\varphi}{\sqrt{1-x^2\sin^4\varphi}}.
\end{equation*}
\end{entry}

The following entry is a beautiful theorem, more recondite than the previous theorem. It is a wonderful illustration of Ramanujan's ingenuity and quest for beauty \cite[pp.~111--112]{III}.
\begin{entry
If $|x|<1$, then
\begin{gather*}
\int_0^{\pi/2}\int_0^{\pi/2}\df{x\sin\,\varphi\,d\theta\,d\varphi}{\sqrt{(1-x^2\sin^2\varphi)(1-x^2\sin^2\theta\,\sin^2\varphi)}}\\
=\df12\left(\int_0^{\pi/2}\df{d\varphi}{\sqrt{1-\tf12(1+x)\sin^2\varphi}}\right)^2-
\df12\left(\int_0^{\pi/2}\df{d\varphi}{\sqrt{1-\tf12(1-x)\sin^2\varphi}}\right)^2.
\end{gather*}
\end{entry}

Despite the fact that Ramanujan's second notebook is a revised edition of the first, there are over 200 claims in the first notebook that cannot be located in the second.  In particular, on page 172 in the first notebook \cite{nb}, two remarkable elliptic integral transformations are recorded \cite[pp.~403--404]{V}. One of them is given in the next entry.
\begin{entry}
Let $0<x<1$, and assume for $0\leq\alpha, \beta\leq \pi/2$ that
$$ \df{1+\sin\,\beta}{1-\sin\,\beta}=\df{1+\sin\,\alpha}{1-\sin\,\alpha}\left(\df{1+x\sin\,\alpha}{1-x\sin\,\alpha}\right)^2.$$
Then,
\begin{equation*}
(1+2x)\int_0^{\alpha}\df{d\theta}{\sqrt{1-x^3\left(\frac{2+x}{1+2x}\right)\sin^2\theta}}=
\int_0^{\beta}\df{d\theta}{\sqrt{1-x\left(\frac{2+x}{1+2x}\right)^3\sin^2\theta}}.
\end{equation*}
\end{entry}

The next two unusual entries are related to elliptic integrals and are found in the unorganized pages of Ramanujan's second notebook \cite[pp.~283, 286]{nb}, \cite[p.~255]{IV}.
\begin{entry}
Let $0\leq\theta\leq\pi/2$ and $0\leq v\leq1$.  Define $\mu$ to be the constant defined by putting $v=1$ and $\theta=\pi/2$ in the definition
\begin{equation}\label{G}
\df{\theta\mu}{2}=\int_0^v\df{dt}{\sqrt{1+t^4}}=:G(v).
\end{equation}
Then,
\begin{equation}\label{el}
2\tan^{-1}v=\theta+\sum_{n=1}^{\i}\df{\sin(2n\theta)}{n\cosh(n\pi)}.
\end{equation}
\end{entry}
Despite its unusual character, \eqref{el} is not too difficult to prove, and follows from the inversion theorem for elliptic integrals.

The integral $G(v)$ has a striking resemblance to the classical lemniscate integral defined next.
 As above, let $0\leq\theta\leq\pi/2$ and $0\leq v\leq1$. Define $\mu$ to be the constant defined by putting $v=1$ and $\theta=\pi/2$ in \eqref{F} below. Then the lemniscate integral $F(v)$ is defined by
\begin{equation}\label{F}
\df{\theta\mu}{\sqrt2}=\int_0^v\df{dt}{\sqrt{1-t^4}}=:F(v)=\sum_{n=0}^{\i}\df{\left(\frac12\right)_nv^{4n+1}}{n!(4n+1)},
\end{equation}
where the right-hand side is a representation for $F(v)$ that arises from expanding the integrand in a binomial series.
Ramanujan offers an inversion formula for the lemniscate integral analogous to \eqref{el}.  Altogether, Ramanujan states ten inversion formulas, six of them for the lemniscate integral \cite[pp.~283, 285, 286]{nb}.  We offer one of them \cite[p.~252]{IV}.  Proofs for all six are given in \cite[245--260]{IV}.
\begin{entry} Let $\theta$ and $v$ be as given in \eqref{F}.  Then,
\begin{gather*}
\log\,v+\df{\pi}{6}-\df12 \log 2+\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\df{(\tf14)_nv^{4n}}{(\tf34)_n4n}
=\log(\sin\theta)+\df{\theta^2}{2\pi}-2\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\df{\cos(2n\theta)}{n(e^{2\pi n}-1)}.
\end{gather*}
\end{entry}

 If
$$ v=\df{\sqrt2\,x}{\sqrt{1+x^4}},$$
then
$$ F(v)=\int_0^v\df{dt}{\sqrt{1-t^4}}=\sqrt2\int_0^x\df{dt}{\sqrt{1+t^4}}=\sqrt{2}G(x),$$
which is an important key step in the historically famous problem of  doubling the arc length of the lemniscate.

The lemniscate integral was initially studied by James Bernoulli and Count Giulio Fagn{\'{a}}no.  Raymond Ayoub \cite{ayoub} wrote a very informative article emphasizing its history and importance.  Carl Ludwig Siegel \cite{siegel} considered the lemniscate integral so important that he began his development of the theory of elliptic functions with a thorough discussion of it.

\section{Ramanujan's Lost Notebook}
 On pages 51--53 in his lost notebook \cite{lnb}, Ramanujan states several original, surprising, and unusual integral identities involving elliptic integrals and his theta functions, including
\begin{equation}\label{f}
f(-q):=(q;q)_{\infty}, \qquad |q|<1,
\end{equation}
which, except for a factor of $q^{1/24}$, is Dedekind's eta-function $\eta(\tau)$, where $q=e^{2\pi i\tau}, \tau\in\mathbb{H}.$  Ramanujan's integrals of theta functions are associated with elliptic integrals and modular equations of degrees 5, 10, 14, or 35.  In view of degrees 14 and 35, it is surprising that none of degree 7 are given.  These integral identities  were first proved by S.~Raghavan and S.~S.~Rangachari \cite{rr} using the theory of modular forms, and later by the first author, Heng Huat Chan, and Sen-Shan Huang employing ideas with which Ramanujan would have been familiar \cite{bch}. Proofs for all of Ramanujan's identities can be found in Andrews' and the first author's book \cite[pp.~327--371]{geabcbI}.  Certain proofs depend upon transformations of elliptic integrals found in Ramanujan's second notebook and discussed above.  Differential equations for products or quotients of theta functions are also featured in some proofs.  The first of two examples that we give is associated with modular equations of degree 5.

\begin{entry}\cite[p.~333]{geabcbI}, \cite[p.~52]{lnb} Let $f(-q)$ be defined by \eqref{f}, $\epsilon=(\sqrt5+1)/2$, and
\begin{equation}\label{rrcf}
u:=u(q):=\df{q^{1/5}}{1}\+\df{q}{1}\+\df{q^2}{1}\+\df{q^3}{1}\+\cds, \qquad |q|<1,
\end{equation}
which defines the Rogers--Ramanujan continued fraction.
Then,
\begin{align*}
5^{3/4}\int_0^{q}\df{f^2(-t)f^2(-t^5)}{\sqrt{t}}dt
&=\int_{\cos^{-1}\left((\epsilon u)^{5/2}\right)}^{\pi/2}\df{d\varphi}{\sqrt{1-\epsilon^{-5}5^{-3/2}\sin^2\varphi}}\\
&=\int_0^{2\tan^{-1}\left(5^{3/4}\sqrt{q}f^3(-q^5)/f^3(-q)\right)}\df{d\varphi}{\sqrt{1-\epsilon^{-5}5^{-3/2}\sin^2\varphi}}.
\end{align*}
\end{entry}

To prove the next entry, also associated with modular equations of degree 5, we need a differential equation involving theta functions.

\begin{lemma} Let
$$\lambda:=\lambda(q):=q\df{f^6(-q^5)}{f^6(-q)}.$$
Then
$$q\df{d}{dq}\lambda(q)=\sqrt{q}\,f^2(-q)f^2(-q^5)\sqrt{125\lambda^3+22\lambda^2+\lambda}.$$
\end{lemma}

\begin{entry}\cite[p.~342]{geabcbI}, \cite[p.~52]{lnb} Let $u$ be defined by \eqref{rrcf}.  Then there exists a constant $C$ such that
\begin{equation*}
u^5+u^{-5}=\df{1}{2\sqrt{q}}\df{f^3(-q)}{f^3(-q^5)}\left(C+\int_q^1\df{f^8(-t)}{f^4(-t^5)}\df{dt}{t^{3/2}}+125
\int_0^q\df{f^8(-t^5)}{f^4(-t)}\sqrt{t}\,dt\right).
\end{equation*}
\end{entry}

\noindent(The constant $C$ can be determined, but it is different from that claimed by Ramanujan \cite[pp.~346--347]{geabcbI}.)

The next entry is connected with modular equations of degree 14.

\begin{entry}\cite[pp.~51--52]{lnb}, \cite[p.~359]{geabcbI}
Let
$$v:=v(q):=q\left(\df{f(-q)f(-q^{14})}{f(-q^2)f(-q^7)}\right)^4.$$
Put
$$c=\df{\sqrt{13+16\sqrt2}}{7}.$$
Then
\begin{gather*}
\int_0^q f(-t)f(-t^2)f(-t^7)f(-t^{14})dt=
\df{1}{\sqrt{8\sqrt2}}\int^{\cos^{-1}c}_{\cos^{-1}\left(c\frac{1+v}{1-v}\right)}\df{d\varphi}{\sqrt{1-\frac{16\sqrt2-13}{32\sqrt2}\sin^2\varphi}}.
\end{gather*}
\end{entry}

Our concluding example of Ramanujan's exquisite formulas is an identity linking elliptic integrals and modular equations of degree 35.

\begin{entry}\cite[p.~53]{lnb}, \cite[p.~364]{geabcbI}
If
$$v:=v(q):=q\df{f(-q)f(-q^{35})}{f(-q^5)f(-q^7)},$$
then
\begin{equation*}
\int_0^q t\,f(-t)f(-t^5)f(-t^7)f(-t^{35})dt=
\int_0^v\df{t\,dt}{\sqrt{(1+t-t^2)(1-5t-9t^3-5t^5-t^6)}}.
\end{equation*}
\end{entry}

Number Theory (math.NT); Classical Analysis and ODEs (math.CA)

Ramanujan's Beautiful Integrals


Equipartitions and Mahler volumes of symmetric convex bodies

Abstract: Following ideas of Iriyeh and Shibata we give a short proof of the three-dimensional Mahler conjecture {\mf for symmetric convex bodies}. Our contributions include, in particular, simple self-contained proofs of their two key statements. The first of these is an equipartition (ham sandwich type) theorem which refines a celebrated result of Hadwiger and, as usual, can be proved using ideas from equivariant topology. The second is an inequality relating the product volume to areas of certain sections and their duals. We observe that these ideas give a large family of convex sets in every dimension for which the Mahler conjecture holds true. Finally we give an alternative proof of the characterization of convex bodies that achieve the equality case and establish a {\mf new} stability result.

\section{Introduction}

A {\it convex body} is a compact convex subset of $\mathbb R^n$ with non empty interior.  We say that $K$ is {\it symmetric} if it is centrally symmetric with its center at the origin, i.e. $K=-K$.   We write $|L|$ for the $k$-dimensional Lebesgue measure (volume)  of a measurable set $L\subset \mathbb R^n$, where $k$ is the dimension of the minimal affine subspace containing $L$. We will refer to \cite{AGM, Sc} for general references for convex bodies.
The polar body $K^\circ$ of a symmetric convex body $K$  is defined by
$K^\circ=\{y; \langle x,y\rangle\le1, \forall x\in K\}$
and its \emph{volume product} by
$$
\mathcal P(K) = |K| |K^\circ|.
$$
It is a linear invariant of $K$, that is
$\mathcal P(TK)=\mathcal P(K)$ for every linear isomorphism $T: \mathbb R^n \rightarrow\mathbb R^n$.  The set of convex symmetric bodies in $\mathbb R^n$ wih the Banach-Mazur distance is compact and the product volume $K\mapsto \mathcal P(K)$ is a continuous function (see the definition in Section \ref{sec:stability} below) hence the maximum and minimum values of $\mathcal P(K)$ are attained.
The Blaschke-Santal\'o inequality states that
$$
\mathcal P(K) \le \mathcal P(B^n_2),
$$
where $B^n_2$ is the Euclidean unit ball. Moreover the previous inequality is an equality if and only if $K$ is an ellipsoid (\cite{San1949}, \cite{Pet}, see \cite{MP}
or also \cite{MR2} for a simple proof of both the inequality and
the case of equality).
In \cite{Mah1939} Mahler conjectured that for every symmetric convex body $K$ in $\mathbb R^n$,
$$
\mathcal P(K)\ge \mathcal P(B_\infty^n)=\frac{4^n}{n!},
$$
where $B_\infty^n=[-1;1]^n$ and proved it for $n=2$ \cite{Mah1939m}. Later the conjecture was proved for unconditional convex bodies \cite{SR,Meyer}, zonoids \cite{Reisner, GMR} and other special cases
\cite{Kar19, Barthe, FMZ}. The conjecture was proved in \cite{BourMil} up to a multiplicative $c^n$ factor for some constant $c>0$, see also \cite{Kuperberg, Na, Giannop}. It is also known that the cube, its dual $B_1^n$ and more generally Hanner polytopes are local minimizers \cite{NazZva, Kim} and that the conjecture follows from conjectures in systolic geometry \cite{ABT} and symplectic geometry \cite{AKY,Kar19}.

Iriyeh and Shibata \cite{IS} came up with a beautiful proof of this conjecture in dimension $3$ that generalizes a proof of Meyer \cite{Meyer} in the unconditional case by adding two new ingredients: differential geometry and a ham sandwich type (or equipartition) result. In this mostly self-contained note we provide an alternative proof and derive the three dimensional symmetric Mahler conjecture following their work.

\begin{thm}[\cite{IS}] \label{thm:main}
For every convex symmetric body $K$ in $\mathbb R^3$,
$$\abs{K}\abs{K^\circ} \geq  \abs{B_1^3}\abs{B_\infty^3}=\frac{32}{3}.$$
Equality is achieved if and only if $K$ or $K^{\circ} $ is a parallelepiped.
\end{thm}

In Section \ref{sec:equipart} we prove an equipartition result. In Section \ref{sec:main} we derive the key inequality and put it together with the aforementioned equipartition to prove Theorem \ref{thm:main}. In Section \ref{sec:equality} we prove the equality cases of Theorem \ref{thm:main} and in Section  \ref{sec:stability} we present a new corresponding stability result. \\

\paragraph{{\bf{Acknowledgements}}}
We thank  Shlomo Reisner for his observations on the paper of Iriyeh and Shibata \cite{IS} and Pavle Blagojevi\'c, Roman Karasev and Ihab Sabik for comments on an earlier version of this work.

\section{An equipartition result}\label{sec:equipart}

A celebrated result of Hadwiger \cite{Hadwiger} who answered a question of Gr\"unbaum \cite{Grunbaum} shows that for any absolutely continuous finite measure in $\mathbb R^3$ there exists three planes for which any octant has $\frac 1 8 $ of the measure. There is a vast literature around Hadwiger's theorem, see \cite{FDEP, Ramos, MVZ,Makeev2007,  BlaZie18}. Theorem \ref{thm:equipart} below which corresponds to formula (15) in \cite{IS} refines Hadwiger's theorem when the measure is centrally symmetric in a way that is reminiscent of the spicy chicken theorem \cite{kha,AKK}.

\begin{thm}\label{thm:equipart}
Let $K \subset \mathbb R^3$ be a  symmetric convex body. Then there exist planes $H_1,H_2,H_3$ passing through the origin such that:
\begin{itemize}
	\item they split $K$ into $8$ pieces of equal volume, and
	\item for each plane $H_i$, the section $K \cap H_i$ is split into $4$ parts of equal area by the other two planes.
\end{itemize}
\end{thm}

Notice that in the proof of this theorem, the convexity of $K$ is not used. The convex body $K$ could be replaced by a  symmetric measure defined via a density function and a different  symmetric density function could be used to measure the areas of the sections. \\ \begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:equipart}]
The scheme of this proof is classical in applications of algebraic topology to discrete geometry. It is often referred to as the configuration-space/test-map scheme (see e.g. Chapter 14 in \cite{TOG2017}).
Assume that $H\subset\mathbb R^3$ is an oriented plane with outer normal $v$. Let us denote the halfspaces
$H^+=\{x; \langle x,v\rangle> 0\}$ and $H^-=\{x; \langle x,v\rangle< 0\}$. If $u\in H^+$, we say that $u$ is on the positive side of $H$.

Given the convex body $K\subset\mathbb R^3$, we parametrize a special family of triplets of planes by orthonormal bases $U=(u_1,u_2,u_3)\in SO(3)$ in the following way.

Let $H_1$ be the  plane $u_1^\perp=\{x; \langle x,u_1\rangle=0\}$.
Let $l_2,l_3\subset H_1$ be the unique pair of  lines through the origin (as in the left part of Figure \ref{fig}) with the following properties:
\begin{itemize}
	\item $u_2,u_3$ are directed along the angle bisectors of $l_2$ and $l_3$,
	\item  the lines $l_2$ and $l_3$ split $H_1\cap K$ into four regions of equal area,
	\item  For any $x \in l_3$,  $\langle x, u_2 \rangle$ has the same  sign  as  $\langle x, u_3\rangle$.

\end{itemize}
For $i=2,3$ let  $H_i$  be   the unique  plane  containing $l_i$ that splits $K\cap H_1^+$ into two parts of equal volume  and let   $H_i^+$ be the half-space limited by $H_i$  which contains  $u_2$. Thus
\begin{itemize}
\item  $\abs{K\cap H_1  \cap (H_2^+ \cap H_3^+)}=\frac{1}{4}\abs{K \cap H_1}$,
\item  $\abs{K \cap (H_1^+ \cap H_i^+)}=\frac{1}{2}\abs{K \cap H_1^+} =\frac{1}{4}\abs{K}$ for $i=2,3$.
\end{itemize}
By using standard arguments it can be seen that the lines $\{l_i\}_{i=2,3}$, the planes  $\{H_i\}_{i=1,2,3}$ and  the half-spaces $\{H_i^+\}_{i=1,2,3}$  are uniquely determined and depend continuously on $U=(u_1,u_2,u_3)$.

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{dibujo.pdf}
\caption{The main parts of our construction restricted to the planes $H_1$, $H_2$ and $H_3$. Gray marks are used on the positive sides of oriented lines and planes. In the middle and right figures the horizontal lines coincide with $l_2$ and $l_3$, respectively.}
\label{fig}
\end{figure}

Now we  define a continuous test-map $F_1=(f_1, f_2, f_3):SO(3)\to\mathbb R^3$, by
\begin{align*}
	f_1(U)&=\frac 18\vol(K) - \vol(K\cap H_1^+\cap H_2^+\cap H_3^+),\\
	f_2(U)&=\frac 14\area(K\cap H_2) - \area(K\cap H_2\cap H_1^+\cap H_3^+),\\
	f_3(U)&=\frac 14\area(K\cap H_3) - \area(K\cap H_3\cap H_1^+\cap H_2^+),
\end{align*}
where $H_i = H_i(U)$, for $i=1,2,3$. Clearly, any zero of $F_1$ corresponds to a partition with the desired properties.

The dihedral group $D_4$ of eight elements with generators $g_1$ of order two and $g_2$ of order four, acts freely on $SO(3)$ by
\begin{align*}
g_1 \cdot (u_1,u_2,u_3)&=(-u_1,u_2,-u_3),\\
g_2\cdot(u_1,u_2,u_3)&=(u_1,u_3,-u_2).
\end{align*}
It also acts on $\mathbb R^3$ linearly by
\begin{align*}
g_1\cdot(x_1,x_2,x_3)&=(-x_1,-x_3,-x_2),\\
g_2\cdot(x_1,x_2,x_3)&=(-x_1,x_3,-x_2).
\end{align*}
Since $K$ is symmetric, $F_1$ is $D_4$-equivariant under the actions we just described, {\em i.e.}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:zho}
g_i\cdot F_1(U)=F_1(g_i\cdot U),\quad\hbox{for all $U=(u_1,u_2,u_3)\in SO(3)$}.
\end{equation}
Indeed, observe that $g_1$ and $g_2$ transform $(H_1^+,H_2^+,H_3^+)$ into $(H_1^-,H_3^+,H_2^+)$ and $(H_1^+,H_3^-,H_2^+)$, respectively (see Figure \ref{fig}). Next, to establish  (\ref{eq:zho}),  observe that since $K$ is  symmetric, the volume of a set of the form $K\cap H_1^\pm\cap H_2^\pm\cap H_3^\pm$ can only have two possible values which depend only on the parity of the number of positive half-spaces used. The same is true for the area of a set of the form $K \cap H_2\cap H_1^\pm\cap H_3^\pm$ and $K \cap H_3\cap H_1^\pm\cap H_2^\pm$.

Consider the function $F_0: SO(3) \to \mathbb R^3$
\[F_0(U)=F_0(u_1,u_2,u_3)=
\begin{pmatrix}
u_{2,2} u_{3,2}\\
u_{3,1} + u_{2,1}\\
u_{3,1} - u_{2,1}
\end{pmatrix},
\]
where $u_{i,j}$ represents the $j$-entry of the vector $u_i$. A direct computation shows that $F_0$ is $D_4$-equivariant and has exactly $8=\lvert D_4\rvert$ zeros in $SO(3)$  given by the orbit under $D_4$ of the identity matrix $I=(e_1, e_2, e_3)$, where $(e_1, e_2,e_3)$ is the canonical basis.
Furthermore, the zeros of $F_0$ are transversal to $SO(3)$. To see this, consider the space $SO(3)$ as a smooth manifold in the space $M_{3\times 3}\simeq\mathbb R^9$ of $3\times 3$ matrices.
For $i=1,2,3$, let $R_i(\theta)$ be the rotation in $\mathbb R^3$ of angle $\theta$ around the vector $e_i$. For example, the matrix corresponding to $i=1$ is of the form
$$R_1(\theta)=\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & \cos(\theta) & -\sin(\theta)\\
0 & \sin(\theta) & \cos(\theta)
\end{pmatrix}.$$
The vectors $v_i=\frac{d R_i}{d t}(0)$ generate the tangent  space to $SO(3)$ at  $I$. Let $D F_0$ be the derivative of $F_0$ at $I$, then it can be verified that $\abs{\det (D F_0 \cdot (v_1,v_2,v_3))}=2\neq 0$ which implies the transversality at $I$. The transversality at the remaining $7$ zeros follows immediately from the $D_4$-equivariance of $F_0$.

The result now follows directly from Theorem 2.1 in \cite{klartag}. The idea of this theorem can be traced back to Brouwer and was used in the equivariant setting by B\'ar\'any to give an elegant proof of the Borsuk-Ulam theorem. B\'ar\'any's proof is explained in the piecewise linear category in Section 2.2 of \cite{Matousek}. For the reader's convenience we give a sketch of the proof of Theorem 2.1 in \cite{klartag} in our case.

Consider the continuous $D_4$-equivariant function defined on $SO(3)\times [0,1]$ by
\[F(U,t):=(1-t) F_0(U)+t F_1(U).\]
We approximate $F$ by a smooth $D_4$-equivariant function $F_\varepsilon$ such that $F_\varepsilon(U,0)=F(U,0)=F_0(U)$, $\sup_{U,t}\abs{F(U,t)-F_\varepsilon (U,t)}<\varepsilon$ and $0$ is a regular value of $F_\varepsilon$. The existence of such a smooth equivariant function follows from Thom's transversality theorem \cite{Thom1954} (see also \cite[pp. 68--69]{guillemin2010}), an elementary direct proof can be found in Section 2 of \cite{klartag}. The implicit function theorem implies that $Z_\varepsilon=F_\varepsilon^{-1}(0,0,0)$ is a one dimensional smooth submanifold of $SO(3)\times [0,1]$ on which $D_4$ acts freely. The submanifold $Z_\varepsilon$ is a union of connected components which are diffeomorphic either to an interval, or to a circle, the former having their boundary on $SO(3)\times \{0,1\}$.
The set $Z_\varepsilon$ has an odd number (1) of orbits under $D_4$ intersecting $SO(3)\times \{0\}$. Denote by $\alpha \colon [0,1] \to SO(3)\times [0,1]$ a topological interval of $F_\varepsilon^{-1}(0)$. Let $g\in D_4$, observe that $g(\alpha(0))\neq \alpha(1)$, indeed, if that is the case then $g$ maps $\alpha([0,1])$ to itself and hence has a fixed point, but this would imply that the action of $D_4$ is not free which is a contradiction. We conclude that an odd number of orbits of $Z_\varepsilon$ must intersect $SO(3)\times \{1\}$, i.e. there exists $U_\varepsilon\in SO(3)$ such that $F_\varepsilon(U_\varepsilon,1)=0$. Since the previous discussion holds for every $\varepsilon$, there exists $U\in SO(3)$ such that $F(U,1)=F_1(U)=0$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Let us restate the punch line of the above argument in algebraic topology language: $F_\varepsilon^{-1}(0)\cap SO(3)\times \{0\}$ is a non-trivial $0$-dimensional homology class of $SO(3)$ in the $D_4$-equivariant homology with $Z_2$ coefficients, on the other hand $F_\varepsilon^{-1}(0)$ is a $D_4$-equivariant bordism so $F_\varepsilon^{-1}(0)\cap SO(3)\times \{1\}$ must also be non-trivial in this equivariant homology, and in particular, non empty.
\end{remark}

\begin{remark}
Theorem \ref{thm:equipart} can also be shown using obstruction theory with the aide of a $D_4$-equivariant CW-decomposition of $SO(3)$ (see \cite{BLAG}).
\end{remark}

\begin{remark}\label{rm:linear}  We shall say for the rest of the paper that $K$ is {\em equipartitioned  by the standard orthonormal basis} $(e_1, e_2, e_3)$ if $(\pm e_1, \pm e_2, \pm e_3) \in \partial K$ and the planes $H_i=e_i^\perp$ satisfy the conditions of Theorem \ref{thm:equipart}. Applying Theorem \ref{thm:equipart} it follows that for every convex, symmetric  body $K \subset \mathbb R^3$ there exists $T \in GL(3)$  such that $TK$ is equipartitioned by the standard orthonormal basis.
\end{remark}

\section{Symmetric Mahler conjecture in dimension 3}\label{sec:main}

For a sufficiently regular oriented hypersurface $A \subset \mathbb R^n$, define the vector
 \[V(A)=\int_A n_A(x)dH(x).\]
where $H$ is the $(n-1)$-dimensional Hausdorff measure on $\mathbb R^n$ such that $|A|=H(A),$ for $A$ contained in a hyperplane,  and $n_A(x)$ denotes the unit normal to $A$ at $x$ defined by its orientation.
Notice that for $n=3$ one has
\begin{equation}\label{wedge}
V(A):=\left(\int_{A}dx_2\wedge dx_3,\int_{A} dx_1 \wedge dx_3,\int_{A} dx_1 \wedge dx_2 \right),
\end{equation}
because of the following equality between vector valued differential forms
\begin{equation}
n_A(x) dH(x)=(dx_2\wedge dx_3, dx_1\wedge dx_3, dx_1\wedge dx_2). \label{identity}
\end{equation}
Indeed let $T_x$ be the tangent plane at $x$, for a pair of tangent vectors $u,v \in T_x$, $dS(x)(u,v)$ is the signed area of the parallelogram spanned by $u$ and $v$. Let $\theta$ be the angle of intersection between $T_x$ and $e_i^\perp$, and observe that $n_A(x)_i=\cos(\theta)$.
On the other hand since the form $dx_j \wedge d x_k$ doesn't depend on the value of $x_i$, we have \[dx_j\wedge dx_k(u,v)=dx_j\wedge dx_k(P_{e_i}u,P_{e_i}v)=\det(P_{e_i}u,P_{e_i}v).\]
This is the signed area of the projection of the oriented parallelogram spanned by $u$ and $v$ on  the coordinate hyperplane $e_i^\perp$. Thales theorem implies  \[dx_j\wedge dx_k(P_{e_i}u,P_{e_i}v)= \cos(\theta) dH(x)(u,v)= (n_A(x))_i dH(x)(u,v),\]
establishing identity (\ref{identity}) above.

For any convex body $K$ in $\mathbb R^n$ containing $0$ in its interior, the orientation of a subset $A$ of $\partial K$ is given by exterior normal $n_K$ to $K$ so that $V(A)=\int_A n_K(x)dH(x)$; we define $\mathcal C(A):=\{rx; 0\le r\le1, x\in A\}$, and observe that
\[\abs{\mathcal C(A)}=\frac{1}{n}\int_A \langle x,n_K(x)\rangle  dH(x).\]

If $K_1$ and $K_2$ are sufficiently regular Jordan regions of $\mathbb R^n$ and $K_1\cap K_2$ is an  hypersurface, we define
$K_1\overrightarrow{\cap} K_2$
to be oriented according to the outer normal of $\partial K_1$. So even though $K_1\overrightarrow{\cap} K_2$ equals $K_2 \overrightarrow{\cap} K_1$ as sets, they may have opposite orientations. We denote by $[a,b]= \{ (1-t)a+tb: t \in [0,1]\}$ the segment joining $a$ to $b$. The inequality of the following proposition generalizes inequality (3) in \cite{Meyer} and was proved in \cite{IS} Proposition 3.2.
\begin{proposition}\label{ineq}
Let $K$ be a symmetric convex body in  $\mathbb R^n$. Let $A$ be a  Borel subset of $\partial K$ with $|\mathcal C(A)| \not=0$, then
\[
\frac{1}{n}\langle x, V(A)\rangle \leq \abs{\mathcal C(A)},\ \forall x\in K.
 \]
So $\frac{V(A)}{n|\mathcal C(A)|}\in K^\circ$ and if moreover for some $x_0\in K$ one has $\langle x_0,\frac{V(A)}{n|\mathcal C(A)|}\rangle=1$ then $x_0\in\partial K$,
$\frac{V(A)}{n|\mathcal C(A)|}\in \partial K^\circ$ and $[x,x_0]\subset\partial K$, for almost all $x\in A$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
For any $x\in K$, we have $\langle x,n_K(z)\rangle \le \langle z,n_K(z)\rangle$ for any $z\in\partial K$. Thus
\[
\langle x, V(A)\rangle = \int_A \langle x,n_K(z)\rangle  dH(z)\leq \int_A \langle z,n_K(z)\rangle  dH(z) =n|\mathcal C(A)|, \ \forall x\in K.
\]
It follows that $\frac{V(A)}{n|\mathcal C(A)|}\in K^\circ$.
If for some $x_0\in K$ one has $\langle x_0,\frac{V(A)}{n|\mathcal C(A)|} \rangle=1$, then clearly $x_0\in\partial K$ and $\frac{V(A)}{n|\mathcal C(A)|}\in \partial K^\circ$. Moreover, for almost all $x\in A$ one has $\langle x_0,n_K(x)\rangle=\langle x,n_K(x)\rangle$  thus $[x, x_0] \subset  \partial K$.

\end{proof}

Using Proposition \ref{ineq} twice we obtain the following corollary.

\begin{corollary} \label{coro}
Let $K$ be a symmetric convex body in $\mathbb R^n$. Consider two Borel subsets $A \subset \partial K$ and $B\subset \partial K^\circ$ such that $|\mathcal C(A)|>0$ and $|\mathcal C(B)|>0$. Then one has
 \[\langle V(A), V(B) \rangle  \le n^2|\mathcal C(A)||\mathcal C(B)|.\]
If there is equality then $[a,\frac{V(B)}{n|\mathcal C(B)|}]\subset\partial K$ and $[b,\frac{V(A)}{n|\mathcal C(A)|}]\subset \partial K^\circ$ for almost all $a\in A$ and $b\in B$.

\end{corollary}

\begin{proof}[Proof of  the inequality of Theorem \ref{thm:main}]
Since the volume product is continuous, the inequality for an arbitrary convex body follows by approximation by centrally symmetric smooth strictly convex bodies (see \cite{Sc} section 3.4).
Since the volume product is  linearly invariant, we may assume, using Remark \ref{rm:linear} that  $K$ is  equipartitioned  by the standard  orthonormal basis.
For $\omega\in\{-1;1\}^3$ and  any set $L\subset\mathbb R^3$ we define $L(\omega)$ to be the intersection of $L$ with the $\omega$-octant:
\[
L(\omega)=\{x\in L; \omega_i x_i\ge0;\    i=1,2,3\}.
\]
From the equipartition of volumes one has $\abs{K(\omega)}=\abs{K}/8$ for every $\omega \in \{-1,1\}^3$.
For $\omega \in\{-1,1\}^3$ let $N(\omega):=\{\omega'\in \{-1,1\}^3: |\omega-\omega'|=2\}$. In other words $\omega' \in N(\omega)$ if  $[\omega, \omega']$ is an edge of the cube $[-1,1]^3$.
Using Stokes theorem we obtain $V(\partial (K(\omega)))=0$ hence
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sec}
  V((\partial K)(\omega))=-\sum_{\omega' \in N(\omega)} V(K(\omega) \overrightarrow{\cap} K(\omega'))=\sum_{i=1}^3 \frac{|K\cap e^\perp_{i}|}{4} \omega_{i} e_{i}
\end{equation}
where in the last equality we used the equipartition of areas of $K\cap e^\perp_{i}$.

Since $K$ is strictly convex and smooth, there exists a diffeomorphism $\varphi:\partial K\to \partial K^\circ$ such that $\langle \varphi(x),x\rangle=1$.
We extend $\varphi$ to $\mathbb R^3$ by homogeneity of degree one: $\varphi(\lambda x)=\lambda \varphi(x)$, for any $\lambda\geq 0$ and $x\in\partial K$.

Then  $K^\circ=\bigcup_{\omega}\varphi (K(\omega))$ and $|K^\circ|=\sum_{\omega}|\varphi (K(\omega))|$.
From the equipartition of volumes one has
\[\abs{K}\abs{K^\circ} =\sum_{\omega } \abs{K} \abs{\varphi (K(\omega))}=8\sum_{\omega} \abs{K(\omega)}\abs{\varphi (K(\omega))}.\]
From Corollary \ref{coro} we deduce that for every $\omega\in\{-1,1\}^3$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ineq:coro}
\abs{K(\omega)}\abs{\varphi (K(\omega))} \ge \frac{1}{9} \langle  V((\partial K)(\omega)), V(\varphi(\partial K)(\omega)))\rangle.
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, using \eqref{eq:sec}
\begin{align}\label{eq:meyer}
\abs{K}\abs{K^\circ}&\ge\frac{8}{9}\sum_{\omega}  \langle V( (\partial K)(\omega)),V( \varphi((\partial K)(\omega)))\rangle =
\frac{8}{9} \sum_\omega\langle  \sum_{i=1}^3 \frac{ |K\cap e^\perp_{i}|}{4} \omega_i e_i,   V( \varphi((\partial K)(\omega)))\rangle \nonumber\\
 &= \frac{8}{9}\sum_{i=1}^3 \frac{ |K\cap e^\perp_{i}|}{4} \langle e_i, \sum_\omega \omega_i  V( \varphi((\partial K)(\omega)))\rangle.
\end{align}
By Stokes theorem $V(\varphi( \partial K(\omega)))=0$, therefore
\[
V(\varphi( (\partial K)(\omega))) =-\sum_{\omega' \in N(\omega)}V(\varphi(K(\omega) \overrightarrow{\cap} K(\omega'))).
\]
Recall that we have chosen orientations so that for every $\omega' \in N(\omega)$
\[
V(\varphi(K(\omega) \overrightarrow{\cap} K(\omega')))=-V(\varphi(K(\omega')\overrightarrow{\cap} K(\omega))).
\]
Substituting in \eqref{eq:meyer} we obtain
\[
\abs{K}\abs{K^\circ}\ge\frac{8}{9}\sum_{i=1}^3 \frac{ |K\cap e^\perp_{i}|}{4} \langle e_i, \sum_\omega \omega_i  \sum_{\omega'\in N(\omega)}V(\varphi(K(\omega')\overrightarrow{\cap} K(\omega))) \rangle.
\]
If  $[\omega,\omega']$ is an edge of the cube $[-1,1]^3$ let $c(\omega,\omega')$ be the coordinate in which $\omega$ and $\omega'$ differ. For every $i=1,2,3$ we have
\begin{align}\label{eq:punch}
\sum_\omega \omega_i  \sum_{\omega'\in N(\omega)}V(\varphi(K(\omega')\overrightarrow{\cap} K(\omega))) = \sum_\omega  \sum_{\omega'\in N(\omega): c(\omega,\omega')=i}\omega_i V(\varphi(K(\omega')\overrightarrow{\cap}  K(\omega)))  \\
+ \sum_\omega \sum_{\omega'\in N(\omega): c(\omega,\omega')\neq i}\omega_i  V(\varphi(K(\omega')\overrightarrow{\cap}  K(\omega))). \nonumber
\end{align}
The first part of the right hand side of \eqref{eq:punch} can be rewritten as a sum of terms of the form
\[  \omega_i V(\varphi(K(\omega')\overrightarrow{\cap}  K(\omega)))  + \omega_i' V(\varphi(K(\omega)\overrightarrow{\cap}  K(\omega'))) =2\omega_i V(\varphi(K(\omega')\overrightarrow{\cap}  K(\omega))),\]
since $\omega_i=-\omega_i'$. Thus for each $i$, the first part of the right hand side of \eqref{eq:punch} equals
\[\sum_{|\omega-\omega'|=2, \omega_i=1,\omega'_i=-1} 2V(\varphi(K(\omega')\overrightarrow{\cap}  K(\omega))=2V(\varphi(K \cap e_i^\perp)),\]
where $K\cap e_i^\bot$ is oriented in the direction of $e_i$.
The second part of the sum \eqref{eq:punch} can be rewritten  as a sum of terms of the form
\[\omega_i V(\varphi(K(\omega')\overrightarrow{\cap}  K(\omega))) + \omega_i' V(\varphi(K(\omega)\overrightarrow{\cap}  K(\omega')))=0,\]
since in this case $\omega_i=\omega_i'$.
Let  $P_i$ be the orthogonal projection on the plane $e_i^\bot$.
Then $P_i: \varphi(K\cap e_i^\bot)\to P_i (K^\circ)$ is a bijection thus from equation (\ref{wedge}) we get
\begin{equation}\label{eq:scalar}
\langle V (\varphi(K\cap e_i^\bot)), e_i\rangle=|P_i(K^\circ)|.
\end{equation}

Since the polar of a section is the projection of the polar, $P_i(K^\circ)=P_i(\varphi(K\cap e_i^\bot))=(K\cap e_i^\bot)^{\circ}$, and we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ineq:end}
\abs{K}\abs{K^\circ}\ge \frac{4}{9}\sum_{i=1}^3  |K\cap e^\perp_{i}| |P_i(K^\circ)|\ge \frac{4}{9}\cdot 3\cdot \frac{4^2}{2}=\frac{4^3}{3!}=\frac{32}{3},
\end{eqnarray}
where we used the $2$-dimensional Mahler inequality
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ineq:mahler2d}
\abs{K\cap e_i^\bot}\abs{P_i(K^\circ)}\ge \frac {4^2}{2}=8.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
In higher dimensions an equipartition result is not at our disposal, but the generalization of the rest of the proof is straightforward and provides a new large family of examples for which the Mahler conjecture holds.
\end{remark}

\begin{proposition}
If $K \subset \mathbb R^n$ is a centrally symmetric convex body that can be partitioned with hyperplanes $H_1,H_2\ldots H_n$ into $2^n$ pieces of the same volume such that each section $K\cap H_i$ satisfies the Mahler conjecture and is partitioned into $2^{n-1}$ regions of the same $(n-1)$-dimensional volume by the remaining hyperplanes, then
\[\abs{K}\abs{K^\circ}\ge \frac{4^n}{n!}.\]
\end{proposition}

The proof is the same, the first inequality has a $\frac{2^n}{n^2}$ factor in front. This time there are $2^{n-1}$ parts on each section and each one appears twice so we multiply by a factor of $\frac{1}{2^{n-2}}$ and the sum has $n$ terms, so the induction step introduces a factor of $\frac{4}{n}$ as desired.

\section{Equality case}\label{sec:equality}
In this section we prove that the only symmetric three dimensional convex bodies that achieve equality in the Mahler conjecture are linear images of the cube and of the cross polytope.

The strategy is to look at the steps in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main} where inequalities were used. Specifically, the analogous theorem in dimension $2$ implies that the coordinate sections of $K$ satisfy the Mahler conjecture and therefore are parallelepipeds. Combinatorial analysis of how these sections can interact with the equipartition yields the equality case. The major ingredient of the analysis on how these sections can coexist in a convex body is corollary \ref{coro}. At first one might think that the situation is extremely rigid and there are just a few evident ways in which a convex body with coordinate square sections might be the union of $8$ cones. In fact there is a large family of positions of the cube for which it is equipartitioned by the standard orthogonal basis, and more than one way of positioning the octahedra so that it is equipartitioned by the standard orthogonal basis, as it will become evident in the proof.\\

First we show that the symmetric convex bodies which are equipartitioned by the standard  orthonormal  basis (see Remark \ref{rm:linear})  are uniformly bounded.
We use the notation $\conv(\cdot)$ to denote the convex hull.

\begin{lemma}\label{lm:bounded} Let $L \subset \mathbb R^2$ be a symmetric convex body equipartitioned by the standard orthonormal basis. Then
\begin{equation}\label{eq:r2bound}
B_1^2 \subset L \subset \sqrt{2} B_2^2.
\end{equation}
Let $K \subset \mathbb R^3$ be a symmetric convex body equipartitioned by the standard orthonormal  basis. Then
$$
B_1^3 \subset K \subset 54\sqrt{2} B_1^3.
$$
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof} The first inclusion follows from the fact $\pm e_1, \pm e_2 \in \partial L$.  Our goal is to see how far any point in $L$ may be situated from $B_1^2$. Consider a point $a
=a_1e_1+a_2e_2 \in L \cap (\mathbb R_+)^2 \setminus B_1^2$. Note that $|a_1-a_2| \le 1$, since otherwise
$e_j$ would be in the interior of $\conv (a, \pm e_i)$ for $i\not=j$, which would contradict the equipartition assumption. It follows that
$
|L \cap (\mathbb R_+)^2| \ge|\conv(0,e_1,e_2,a)|= \frac{a_1+a_2}{2}.
$
Let $b$ be the intersection of the line through $a$ and $e_1$ and  the line through $-a$ and $-e_2$.  Then
$
L \cap \{ x_1 \ge 0, x_2 \le 0\} \subset \conv(0, b, e_1, -e_2),
$
Indeed, otherwise one of the points $e_1$ or $-e_2$ would not be on the boundary of $L$.  Using that  $|\conv(0, b, e_1, -e_2)|=\frac{b_1-b_2}{2}$ and the equipartition property of $L$, a direct computation shows that
$(a_1-\frac{1}{2})^2+  (a_2-\frac{1}{2})^2 \le \frac{1}{2}.$
Repeating this observation for all quadrants of $L$  we get the result.

Now  consider a symmetric convex body $K \subset \mathbb R^3$ equipartitioned by the standard orthonormal basis. Let us prove that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:one-third}
\max_{a\in K(\omega)}\|a\|_1\ge\max_{a\in K}\|a\|_1^{1/3},\quad \forall\omega\in\{-1;1\}^3,
\end{equation}
where $\|a\|_1=\sum |a_i|$. Let $\omega_0\in\{-1;1\}^3$ and $a(\omega_0)\in K(\omega_0)$ such that $\|a(\omega_0)\|_1=\max_{a\in K}\|a\|_1$. Then
$$
|K(\omega_0)| \ge |\conv(0,e_1,e_2, e_3,a(\omega_0))|=\|a(\omega_0)\|_1/6.
$$
For any $\omega\in\{-1;1\}^3$, one has $K(\omega)\subset\max_{a\in K(\omega)}\|a\|_1B_1^3(\omega)$ thus $|K(\omega)|\le\max_{a\in K(\omega)}\|a\|_1^3/6$, this together with the equipartition property of $K$ gives (\ref{eq:one-third}).

Let $R=\max_{a\in K}\|a\|_1$. Then, from (\ref{eq:one-third}), for all $\omega$ there exists $a(\omega)=a_1(\omega)e_1+a_2(\omega)e_2+a_3(\omega) e_3 \in K(\omega)$ such that $\|a(\omega)\|_1 \ge R^{1/3}$. Note that $\|a(\omega)\|_\infty=\max_i |a_i(\omega)| \ge R^{1/3}/3$.
Moreover, there exists $\omega \not =\omega'$,  and  $i\in \{1,2,3\}$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:comb}
 |a_i(\omega)|=\|a(\omega)\|_\infty \ge \frac{R^{1/3}}{3},\quad   |a_i(\omega')|=\|a(\omega')\|_\infty \ge \frac{R^{1/3}}{3} \quad\mbox{and}\quad  \sign a_i(\omega) = \sign a_i(\omega').
\end{equation}
Indeed,  among the $8$ vectors $a(\omega)$,  at least three  achieve their $\ell_\infty$-norm at the same coordinate $i$ and,  among these three vectors, at least two have this coordinate of the same sign.

Consider $a(\omega)$ and $a(\omega')$ as in (\ref{eq:comb}), then $\lambda a(\omega) +(1-\lambda) a(\omega') \in K$ for all $\lambda \in [0,1]$. Since $\omega \not =\omega'$,  there exists a coordinate $j \not=i$ such that either $a_j(\omega)=a_j(\omega')=0$  or $\sign a_j(\omega) \not =\sign a_j(\omega')$.  For some $\lambda \in [0,1]$,  one has
$
\lambda a_j(\omega) +(1-\lambda) a_j(\omega') =0$  and thus    $\lambda a(\omega) +(1-\lambda) a(\omega') \in K \cap e_j^\perp.
$
Using the equipartition of $L:=K \cap e_j^\perp$  and (\ref{eq:r2bound}), together with the properties of $a(\omega)$ and $a(\omega')$,  we get
$$
\frac{R^{1/3}}{3} \le  | (\lambda a_i(\omega) +(1-\lambda) a_i(\omega'))| \le \sqrt{2}.
$$
\end{proof}

Using Lemma \ref{lm:bounded}, we prove the following approximation lemma.

\begin{lemma}\label{approx} Let $L\subset\mathbb R^3$ be a symmetric convex body. Then there exists a sequence $(L_m)_m$ of smooth symmetric strictly convex bodies which converges to $L$ in Hausdorff distance and a sequence $(T_m)_m$ of linear invertible maps which converges to a linear invertible map $T$ such that for any $m$ the bodies $T_mL_m$ and $TL$ are equipartitioned by the standard orthonormal basis.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
From  \cite{Sc} section 3.4 there exists a sequence $(L_m)_m$ of smooth symmetric strictly convex bodies converging to $L$ in Hausdorff distance. From Theorem \ref{thm:equipart} there exists a linear map $T_m$ such that $T_mL_m$ is equipartitioned by the standard orthonormal basis. Since $(L_m)_m$  is a convergent sequence it is also  a bounded sequence and  thus there exist constants $c_1, c_2>0$  such that  $c_1B_2^3 \subset L_m \subset c_2B_2^3$. Moreover,  from Lemma \ref{lm:bounded} there exist $c'_1, c'_2>0$ such that $ c'_1B_2^3 \subset T_m L_m \subset c'_2B_2^3$. Thus  $\sup_m\{\|T_m\|, \|T^{-1}_m\|\}<\infty$ and we may select a subsequence $T_{m_k}$ which converges to some invertible linear map $T$. Then $T_{k_m}L_{k_m}$ converges to $TL$.  By continuity, $TL$ is also equipartitioned by the standard orthonormal basis.
\end{proof}

We also need the following lemma.

\begin{lemma}\label{lm:square} Let $P$ be a centrally symmetric parallelogram with non empty interior. Assume that $P$ is equipartitioned by the standard orthonormal axes
  then $P$ is a square.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof} For some invertible linear map $S$, one has   $S(P)=B_\infty^2$ and the lines $\{t Se_1: t \in \mathbb R\}$, $\{t Se_2: t \in \mathbb R\}$  equipartition $B_\infty^3$. The square $B_\infty^2$ remains invariant when we apply a rotation of angle $\pi/2$. The rotated lines must also equipartition $B_\infty^2$, this implies that the rotated lines are also invariant since otherwise one cone of $1/4$ of the area would be contained in another cone of area $1/4$. Moreover  $Se_1,Se_2\in\partial B_\infty^2$, thus  $\|Se_1\|_2=\|Se_2\|_2:=\lambda$, and we can conclude that   $\frac 1 \lambda S$ is an isometry and $P$ is a square.
\end{proof}

We shall use the following easy lemma.

 \begin{lemma}\label{observation} Let $K$ be a convex body in $\mathbb R^3$.
 If two segments $(p_1,p_2)$ and $[p_3,p_4]$  are included in $\partial K$ and satisfy $(p_1,p_2)\cap [p_3,p_4]\neq\emptyset$,
 then $\conv(p_1,p_2,p_3, p_4)\subset H\cap K\subset\partial K$, for some supporting plane $H$ of $K$.
 \end{lemma}

 \begin{proof}
Let $H$ be a supporting plane of $K$ such that $[p_3,p_4]\subset H$. Denote by $n$ the exterior normal of $H$. Let $x\in(p_1,p_2)\cap [p_3,p_4]$. Then $\langle p_i,n\rangle\le \langle x,n\rangle$ for all $i$. Moreover there exists $0<\lambda<1$ such that $x=(1-\lambda)p_1+\lambda p_2$. Since $\langle x,n\rangle=(1-\lambda) \langle p_1,n\rangle+\lambda\langle p_2,n\rangle \le \langle x,n\rangle$ one has $p_1,p_2\in H$. Since $H\cap K$ is convex, we conclude that $\conv(p_1,p_2,p_3, p_4)\subset H\cap K$.
 \end{proof}

 \noindent
 \begin{proof}[Proof of the equality case of Theorem 1.]
Let $L$ be a symmetric convex body such that $\abs{L}\abs{L^\circ}=\frac{32}{3}$. Applying Lemma \ref{approx} and denoting $K=TL$ and $K_m=T_mL_m$, we get that the bodies $K_m$ are smooth and strictly convex symmetric, the bodies $K_m$ and $K$ are equipartitioned by the standard orthonormal basis and the sequence $(K_m)_m$ converges to $K$ in Hausdorff distance.
Applying inequality (\ref{ineq:end}) to  $K_m$ and taking the limit we get
$$
\frac{32}{3}=\abs{K}\abs{K^\circ}=\lim_{m\to+\infty}|K_m||K_m^\circ|\ge\frac{4}{9}\sum_{i=1}^3 \lim_{m\to+\infty} |K_m\cap e^\perp_{i}| |P_i(K_m^\circ)|= \frac{4}{9}\sum_{i=1}^3  |K\cap e^\perp_{i}| |P_i(K^\circ)|\ge \frac{32}{3},
$$
where we used (\ref{ineq:mahler2d}). Thus we deduce that  for all $i=1,2,3$,
\[
\abs{K\cap e_i^\bot}\abs{P_i(K^\circ)}= 8.
\]
Reisner \cite{Reisner} and Meyer \cite{Meyer} showed that if Mahler's equality in $\mathbb R^2$ is achieved then the corresponding planar convex body is a parallelogram. It follows that the sections of $K$ by the planes $e_i^\bot$ are parallelograms, which are equipartitioned by the standard orthonormal axes. From  Lemma \ref{lm:square} the  coordinate sections $K\cap e_i^\bot$ are squares and one may write
\[K\cap e_i^\bot=\conv(a_\omega;\ \omega_i=0;\ \omega_j\in\{-;+\}, \forall j\neq i),\quad\hbox{where}\quad a_\omega\in\sum_{i=1}^3\mathbb R_{\omega_i}e_i.
\]
For example
$K\cap e_3^\bot=\conv(a_{++0}, a_{+ - 0}, a_{-+0}, a_{--0}).$
We discuss the four different cases, which also appeared in \cite{IS}, depending on  the location of the vertices of $K\cap e_i^\bot$.\\

{\bf Case 1.} If exactly one of the coordinate sections of $K$ is the canonical $B_1^2$ ball, then  $K$ is a parallelepiped. \\
For instance, suppose that for
  $i=1,2$, $K\cap e_i^\bot\neq\conv(\pm e_j; j\neq i)$, but $K\cap e_3^\bot=\conv(\pm e_1, \pm e_2)$.  We apply Lemma \ref{observation} to the segments  $[a_{+0+}, a_{-0+}]$ and $[a_{0++}, a_{0-+}]$
to get that the supporting plane $S_3$ of $K$ at $e_3$ contains the quadrilateral $F_3:=\conv(a_{+0+}, a_{0++}, a_{-0+}, a_{0-+})$ and $e_3$ is in the relative interior of the face $K\cap S_3$ of $K$. Moreover $(a_{+0+}, a_{+0-})$ and $[e_1,e_2]$ are included in $\partial K$ and intersect at $e_1$. Thus from Lemma \ref{observation} the triangle $\conv(a_{+0+}, a_{+0-},e_2)$ is included in a face of $K$. In the same way, this face also contains the triangle $\conv(a_{0+-}, a_{0++},e_1)$. Thus the quadrilateral $\conv(a_{+0+}, a_{+0-}, a_{0+-}, a_{0++})$ is included in a face of $K$. In the same way, we get
that the quadrilateral $\conv(a_{0+-}, a_{0++}, a_{-0+}, a_{-0-})$ is included in a face of $K$. We conclude that $K$ is a symmetric body with $6$ faces, thus a parallelepiped.\\

{\bf Case  2.} If exactly two of the coordinate sections of $K$ are canonical $B_1^2$ balls, then $K=B_1^3$. \\
For instance, suppose that
 for every $i=1,2$, $K\cap e_i^\bot=\conv(\pm e_j; j\neq i)$, but $K\cap e_3^\bot\neq\conv(\pm e_1, \pm e_2)$.  Then the segments $(a_{++0}, a_{+-0})$ and $[e_1,e_3]$ are included in $\partial K$ and intersect at $e_1$. Thus from Lemma \ref{observation}, the triangle $\conv(a_{++0}, a_{+-0}, e_3)$ is
in a face of $K$. Using the other octants, we conclude that $K=\conv(e_3,-e_3, K\cap e_3^{\perp})$.\\

{\bf Case  3.} If for every $1\le i\le 3$, $K\cap e_i^\bot\neq\conv(\pm e_j; j\neq i)$, then $K$ is a cube. \\
One has  $(a_{++0}, a_{+-0})\subset \partial K$ and $(a_{+0+}, a_{+0-})\subset\partial K$ and  these segments intersect at $e_1$.  From Lemma~\ref{observation}, the supporting plane $S_1$ of $K$ at $e_1$ contains the quadrilateral $\conv(a_{++0}, a_{+-0}, a_{+0+}, a_{+0-})$ and $e_1$ is in the relative interior of the face $K\cap S_1$.   Reproducing this in each octant,
we conclude that $K$ is contained in the parallelepiped $L$ delimited by the planes $S_i$ and $-S_i$, $1\le i\le3$. Let $u_i\in\partial K^\circ$ be such that $S_i=\{x\in \mathbb R^3; \langle x, u_i \rangle =1\}$. It follows that $K^{\circ}$ contains  the octahedron $L^\circ= \conv(\pm u_1, \pm u_1,\pm u_3)$. Observe that $K\cap e_i^\perp= L\cap e_i^\perp$
and thus
$
P_i K^\circ= P_i L^{\circ},
$
 for each  $i=1,2,3$.
Let $H_i$ the oriented plane spanned by $u_j, u_k$, with the positive side containing $u_i$, where $i, j, k$ are distinct indices, $i,j,k \in \{1,2,3\}$ and let $H_i^{\omega_i}$ be the half-space containing $\omega_i u_i$. Let
$$
K^{\circ}_\omega =K^{\circ}\cap H_1^{\omega_1} \cap H_2^{\omega_2}\cap H_3^{\omega_3} \mbox{ and } (\partial  K^{\circ})_\omega =\partial K^{\circ}\cap H_1^{\omega_1} \cap H_2^{\omega_2}\cap H_3^{\omega_3}.
$$
  We  note that $P_i(u_j),$  $i\not = j$ is orthogonal to an edge of $K \cap e_i^\perp$, thus
$P_i(u_j)$ is a vertex of $P_i(K^\circ)$, taking into account that $P_i(K^\circ)$ is a square we get
$$
P_i(K^\circ)=P_i (\conv(\pm u_j, \pm u_k))=P_i(K^\circ \cap H_i),
$$ where $i, j, k$ are distinct indices, $i,j,k \in \{1,2,3\}$. Similarly to (\ref{eq:scalar}),  from equation (\ref{wedge}) we get
\begin{equation}\label{eq:descr}
\langle V(K^\circ \cap H_i), e_i\rangle=|P_i(K^\circ)|,
\end{equation}
where $K^\circ\cap H_i$ is oriented in the direction of $u_i$.
As in the proof
of Theorem \ref{thm:main},  we  use  the equipartition of $K$, to  get
$$
\frac{32}{3}=|K||K^{\circ}|=8\sum_{\omega} |K(\omega) | |K^{\circ}_\omega|  \ge  \frac{8}{9} \sum \langle  V((\partial K)(\omega)), V((\partial K^{\circ})_\omega)\rangle,
$$
where the last inequality follows  from  Corollary \ref{coro}. Since $K^\circ_\omega$  is a convex body one has
\[
V((\partial K^{\circ})_\omega) =-\sum_{\omega'\in N(\omega)}V(K^\circ_\omega \overrightarrow{\cap}  K^\circ_{\omega'}).
\]
We thus may continue  as in the proof of Theorem  \ref{thm:main}, we finally get
$$
 \frac{32}{3}=|K||K^{\circ}|=8\sum_{\omega} |K(\omega) | |K^{\circ}_\omega|  \ge  \frac{8}{9} \sum \langle V((\partial K)(\omega)), V((\partial K^{\circ})_\omega)\rangle\ge \frac{4}{9} \sum_{i=1}^3 |K \cap e_i^{\perp}|  |P_i(K^{\circ})| =\frac{32}{3}.
$$
It follows that $\langle \frac{V((\partial K)(\omega))}{3 |K(\omega) |}, \frac{V((\partial K^{\circ})_\omega)}{3 |K^\circ_\omega |}\rangle =1$. Using Corollary \ref{coro} we define the points
\begin{equation}\label{eq:points}
y_\omega:= \frac{V((\partial K)(\omega))}{3 |K(\omega) |} \in\partial K^{\circ} \mbox{ and   } x_\omega:=\frac{V((\partial K^{\circ})_\omega)}{3 |K^\circ_\omega |}\in \partial K,
\end{equation}
for all $\omega\in \{-1,1\}^3$.  Since $[e_1,x_{+,+,+}]\subset \partial K$ one has $x_{+++}\in S_1$. In the same way $x_{+++}\in S_2$ and $x_{+++}\in S_3$.  Reproducing this in each octant and for each $x_\omega$, we conclude that $K=L$.\\

{\bf Case  4.} If for every $1\le i\le 3$, $K\cap e_i^\bot=\conv(\pm e_j; j\neq i)$, then $B_1^3=K$.\\
 Since $B_1^3\subset K$ one has $K^\circ\subset B_\infty^3$ and $P_i(K^\circ)=P_i( B_\infty^3)$.
If there exists  $\omega \in \{-1;1\}^3$ such that $\omega \in K^\circ$, then  $K(\omega) =B_1^3(\omega)$ and using equipartition property of $K$ we get $K=B_1^n$. Assume, towards the contradiction,  that $K^\circ \cap   \{-1;1\}^3 =\emptyset$. Since  $P_iK^\circ= [-1,1]^3\cap e_i^\perp$,
each {\it open} edge $(\varepsilon,\varepsilon')$ of the cube $[-1,1]^3$  contains at least
one point $C_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon'}\in \partial K^\circ$.
Using the symmetry of $K^\circ$ we may assume that the twelve selected points $C_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon'}$ are pairwise symmetric.
For each $i=1,2,3,$ consider the $4$ points $C_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon'}$ belonging to edges of $[-1,1]^3$ parallel to the direction $e_i$. They generate a plane $H_i$ passing through the origin. Thus, we have defined $3$ linearly  independent planes   $H_1, H_2$ and $H_3$  (note that linear independence follows from the fact that $H_i$ does not contain the vertices of the cube and passes through edges parallel to $e_i$ only).  Those planes define a partition of $K^\circ$ into $8$ regions with non-empty interior, moreover,
$$
P_i(K^\circ)=P_i(K^\circ \cap H_i).
$$
We repeat verbatim the construction of Case 3 using the partition of $K^\circ$ by the planes $H_i$ and defining $H_i^{\omega_i}$ to be a half-space containing $\omega_i e_i$. Using Proposition \ref{ineq} and Corollary  \ref{coro}  we get  that  for each point of $y\in \partial K^\circ$, for some $\varepsilon\in \{-1;1\}^3$,  one has
$[y,y_\omega]\subset (\partial K^\circ)_\omega$ (see  (\ref{eq:points}) for the definition of $y_\omega$).  Together with the fact that each face of $B_\infty^3$  intersects $K^\circ$ on a facet of $K^\circ$ this gives that $B_\infty^3=K^\circ$, which contradicts our assumption that
$K^\circ \cap   \{-1;1\}^3 =\emptyset$.
\end{proof}

\section{Stability}\label{sec:stability}

The goal of this section is to establish the stability of the $3$ dimensional Mahler inequality.
 The {\it Banach-Mazur distance} between symmetric convex bodies $K$ and $L$ in $\mathbb R^n$ is defined as
  $$d_{BM}(K,L) = \inf \{d\ge1 : L\subset TK\subset dL, \mbox{ for some } T\in{\rm GL}(n)\}.$$
 We refer to \cite{AGM} for properties of the Banach-Mazur distance, in particular, for John's theorem, which states that $d_{BM}(K, B_2^n) \le \sqrt{n}$ for any symmetric convex  body $K\subset \mathbb R^n$ and thus $d_{BM}(K, L) \le n$ for any pair of symmetric convex  bodies $K,L \subset \mathbb R^n$.

\begin{thm}\label{thm:stability_BM}
There exists an absolute constant $C>0$, such that for every symmetric convex body $K \subset \mathbb R^3$ and $\delta>0$  satisfying
$\mathcal P(K) \leq (1+ \delta)\mathcal P(B_\infty^3)$, one has
$$
\min\{ d_{BM}(K, B_\infty^3), d_{BM}(K, B_1^3)\} \le 1+C\delta.
$$
\end{thm}

We start with a general simple lemma on compact metric spaces and continuous functions.
 \begin{lemma}\label{lem:metric}
  Let $(A,d)$ be a compact metric space, $(B,d')$  a metric space, $f:A\to B$ a continuous function and $D$ a closed subset of $B$. Then,
   \begin{enumerate}
  \item For any $\beta>0$ there exists $\alpha>0$ such that $d(x,f^{-1}(D))\ge\beta$ implies $d'(f(x),D)\ge\alpha$.
   \item If  there exists  $c_1,c_2>0$ such that $d(x,f^{-1}(D))<c_1$ implies $d'(f(x), D))\ge c_2d(x,f^{-1}(D))$ then  for some $C>0$, one has
$d(x,f^{-1}(D)) \le C d'(f(x), D)), \  \forall x \in A.$
  \end{enumerate}
 \end{lemma}
 \begin{proof} (1) Let $\beta>0$ such that $A_\beta = \{x \in A:  d(x, f^{-1}(D) \ge \beta\}\neq\emptyset$. Then $A_\beta$ is compact and since the function $x\mapsto d'(f(x), D))$ is continuous on $A_\beta$, it reaches its infimum $\alpha$ at some point $x_0\in A_\beta$. We conclude that for all $x\in A_\beta$ one has $d'(f(x), D))\ge\alpha=d'(f(x_0), D))>0$ since $x_0\notin f^{-1}(D)$.\\
 (2) Consider two cases. First assume that $d(x,f^{-1}(D))<c_1$, then  $d'(f(x), D) \ge c_2d(x,f^{-1}(D))$ and we select $C=1/c_2$. Now assume
 that $d(x,f^{-1}(D)) \ge c_1$, then using (1), with $\beta=c_1$ we get
 $$
d'(f(x),D)\ge\alpha \ge \frac{\alpha}{{\rm diam}(A)}  d(x,f^{-1}(D)) \  \forall x \in A,
 $$
 where ${\rm diam}(A)$ is the diameter of the metric space $A$ and we conclude with $C=\max\{1/c_2, \frac{{\rm diam}(A)}{\alpha} \}$.
 \end{proof}

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:stability_BM}] The proof follows from Lemma \ref {lem:metric}  together with the stability theorem proved in \cite{NazZva} and equality cases proved in the previous section. Using the linear invariance of the volume product, together with John's theorem we reduce to the case when  $B_2^3\subseteq K \subseteq \sqrt{3} B_2^3$. Our metric space $A$ will be  the set of such bodies  with the Hausdorff metric $d_H$ (see, for example, \cite{Sc}). Let $B=\mathbb R$.  Then $f:A \to B$, defined by  $f(K)=\mathcal P(K)$,  is continuous on $A$ (see for example \cite{FMZ}).  Finally, let $D=\mathcal P(B_\infty^3)$. Using the description of the equality  cases proved in the previous section we get that
$$
f^{-1}(D)=\{K\in A; \mathcal P(K)=\mathcal P(B_\infty^3)\}=\{K\in A; \exists\ S\in {\rm SO}(3); K=S B_\infty^3\ \hbox{or}\ K=\sqrt{3}SB_1^3\}.
$$
Note that $B_\infty^3$ is in John position (see for example \cite{AGM}) and thus  if $ B_2^3 \subset T B_\infty^3 \subset \sqrt{3}B_2^3$ for some $T \in GL(3)$, then $T \in SO(3)$.

We show that the assumptions in the  second part of Lemma \ref{lem:metric} are satisfied. As observed in  \cite{BH} the result of \cite{NazZva} may be stated in the following way: there exists  constants $\delta_0(n), \beta_n>0$, depending on dimension $n$ only,  such that  for every  symmetric convex body $K \subset \mathbb R^n$ satisfying $d_{BM}(K, B_\infty^n) \le 1+ \delta_0(n)$ we get
$$
\P(K) \ge  (1+\beta_n (d_{BM}(K, B_\infty^n)-1))\P(B_\infty^n).
$$
Using that $d_{BM}(K^\circ, L^\circ)= d_{BM}(K, L)$,  we may restate the $3$ dimensional version of the above stability theorem in the following form: there are absolute constants $c_1, c_2 >0$ such that  for every  symmetric convex body $K \subset \mathbb R^3$ satisfying
$\min\{ d_{BM}(K, B_\infty^3), d_{BM}(K, B_1^3)\} :=1+d \le  1+c_1,$
one has
$$
\P(K) \ge  \P(B_\infty^3)+ c_2 d.
$$
To finish checking the assumption, note that for all $K,L$ convex bodies such that $B_2^3\subseteq K,L \subseteq \sqrt{3} B_2^3$:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:dist}
d_{BM}(K, L)-1 \le   \min_{T\in GL(3)} d_H (TK, L) \le  \sqrt{3}(d_{BM}(K, L) -1 ).
\end{eqnarray}
Applying Lemma \ref{lem:metric} we deduce that there exists $C>0$ such that for all $K$ such that $B_2^3\subseteq K \subseteq \sqrt{3} B_2^3$:
\[
\min_{S\in SO(3)}\min(d_H(K,SB_\infty^3), d_H(K,S\sqrt{3}B_1^3))\le C|\P(K)-\P(B_\infty^3)|.
\]
Using (\ref{eq:dist}) we conclude the proof.

\end{proof}

\begin{remark} The same method as in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:stability_BM}, i.e. applying Lemma  \ref{lem:metric}, known equality cases and the results from \cite{Kim, NazZva} can be used to present  shorter proofs of the stability theorems given in \cite{BH, ZvK}.
\end{remark}